Letters, March 1: OC school district - a financial mogul?

ORANGE, Richard Callahan: In a questionable move, the Orange Unified School District board is proposing the leasing of surplus school property, known as the Peralta site, off Canal Street, to an out-of-town developer to turn the property, zoned for single-family residences, into 380 or more apartments and assuming the financial risk of landlord for a period of 99 years.

MCT ILLUSTRATION

The board's plan runs contrary to the best use of the property as determined by an independent appraiser and has met with opposition from surrounding residents. Yet the board has been steadfast in its refusal to follow the generally accepted practice of selling surplus property for development consistent with zoning and the neighborhood. The proposal would pay the district a minimal rent with the income received to be used as collateral to obtain a loan to fund much needed school deferred maintenance and upgrades. This improvement funding could be accomplished more securely by sale of the property without the risk of floating bond issues that require periodic refinancing.

A 99-year lease and leveraging the income for money to repair and upgrade schools is a perilous financial decision. It is estimated that the rental proceeds are likely to be adequate to pay the interest on the debt, but not be adequate to retire the debt. This could mean periodic refinancing, a potentially costly exercise, particularly if interest rates rise. At the end of the 99-year term, a new board could renegotiate the lease or the developer could step away, leaving the board with a 100-year-old structure, in unknown condition, with a mortgage on it.

The formal proposal for development of the site states that the district should be sensitive to its role in the community. This has not been demonstrated. Adjacent residents fear disintegration of the neighborhood and loss of property values. Further, the simple majority of the school board has dug in their heels to support the risky venture despite questions about impartiality, as a consultant to the developer was once a member of one of the board's campaign committees and stated that he couldn't remember if he made monetary contributions to the campaign.

Voters expecting the board to focus on educating children are disappointed that they have chosen to become financial moguls.

Kaplan suggests that we shift to "renewable alternative fuels" – without naming them – that he claims are cheaper than gasoline. If he is referring to ethanol, this is simply not true. Ethanol both costs more to produce and provides a lower output of usable energy. It also requires the diversion of arable land away from food production, which affects the cost of food and has moral implications.

The required addition of ethanol to gasoline has not improved performance or mileage. It has not swayed dependence on foreign oil. Research to develop processes like algae farms that can produce oil-like products in salt flats is a good idea, but is not doable now. For the present, it has to be "Drill, baby, drill!"

Since it belongs to "We the people," developments permitted on federal lands (including offshore leases) should be restricted for domestic consumption only – zero percent exported until we require no imports. Drilling on state-owned land – which also belongs to citizens – could have a similar restriction. Higher-risk fields requiring fracking could be more tightly regulated, but improvements to the process should be encouraged. If the world oil price drops to the point that these fields are not economically viable, continue their development, just don't pump the oil (or pump it and store it).

When the oil embargo occurred in the 1970s, the U.S. was unprepared. Oil leases considered unprofitable were suddenly worth reopening. With the world situation as it is, and 20 percent of oil worldwide coming through the Strait of Hormuz, it is irresponsible to not prepare for the worst case scenario.

Electric car tall tales

IRVINE, John Jaeger: The Register recently published an article about the Tesla electric car ["Tesla S is a hunky green machine," News, Feb. 21]. So-called "environmentalists" refer to electric cars as "zero emissions." Where do you think the electricity comes from? Half of it is produced by burning coal. Much of the rest comes from burning fossil fuels, like natural gas and fuel oil.

The article touts the Tesla as a vehicle that saves the environment – at a cost of $60,000 for the cheaper one and over $100,000 for the one tested, with 450 horsepower. For the sake of comparison, I looked and found a traditional car advertised in the Register for around $12,000, probably the cost of replacing the Tesla's batteries after a few years. You can buy five to eight good automobiles for the cost of one pretend environmentally "friendly" car.

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@ocregister.com.
Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published).
Letters of about 200 words or videos of 30-seconds
each will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.